The Level of Processing, Nutritional Composition and Prices of Canadian Packaged Foods and Beverages with and without Gluten-Free Claims

Abstract

Little is known about the healthfulness and cost of gluten-free (GF) foods, relative to non-GF alternatives, in Canada. This study compared the extent of processing, nutritional composition and prices of Canadian products with and without GF claims. Data were sourced from the University of Toronto Food Label Information Program (FLIP) 2013 (n = 15,285) and 2017 (n = 17,337) databases. Logistic regression models examined the association of NOVA processing category with GF claims. Calorie/nutrient contents per 100 g (or mL) were compared between GF and non-GF products. Generalized linear models compared adjusted mean prices per 100 g (or mL) of products with and without GF claims. The prevalence of GF claims increased from 7.1% in 2013 to 15.0% in 2017. GF claims appeared on 17.0% of ultra-processed foods, which were more likely to bear GF claims products than less-processed categories. Median calories and sodium were significantly higher in GF products; no significant differences were observed for saturated fat or sugars. Compared to non-GF products, adjusted mean prices of GF products were higher for 10 food categories, lower for six categories and not significantly different for six categories. Overall, GF claims are becoming increasingly prevalent in Canada; however, they are often less healthful and more expensive than non-GF alternatives, disadvantaging consumers following GF diets.

Evaluating the potential implications of canadian front-of-pack labelling regulations in generic and branded food composition databases

“…Although the generic food composition database (i.e., CNF 2015) showed a lower prevalence of a FOP symbol among foods commonly consumed by Canadians, the branded database (i.e., FLIP 2017), showed that over 60% of packaged products would be deemed "less healthy" according to the proposed FOP labelling regulations (i.e., 'high in' one or more nutrients-of-concern). Consistent with our findings, much evidence has shown that the Canadian packaged food supply is dominated by energydense and nutrient-poor food and beverage products that are often highly processed [25][26][27][28]. Increased consumption of highly processed foods may be linked to poor diet quality and adverse health outcomes [30,31], in part, related to the elevated amounts of nutrients-of-concern.…”

“…The Food Label Information Program (FLIP) is a branded food database developed and maintained by the University of Toronto, details for which have been published elsewhere [18,[23][24][25][26][27][28]. Briefly, FLIP 2017 data was collected between May and September 2017 and contains nutritional information for 17,671 unique packaged food and beverage products from top Canadian food retailers (Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro), representing approximately 64% of the retail market share at the time of collection.…”

Hepatic Steatosis in Patients with Celiac Disease: The Role of Packaged Gluten-Free Foods

“…In their original investigation of Austrian PGFF, Missbach et al [ 14 ] did not find significant nutritional differences in bread and snacks. However, other studies conducted with similar methodologies showed that Canadian [ 15 , 25 ], Norwegian [ 16 ], Slovenian [ 17 ], Moroccan [ 18 ], and Brazilian [ 26 ] gluten-free breads had higher carbohydrate and saturated fat contents compared to gluten-containing breads. Similar differences were also reported for sweet convenience foods, another category which was particularly associated with NAFLD in our study.…”

“…Briefly, these categories included: flour/bake mix (G1), bread and bakery products (G2), pasta and cereal-based food (G3), cereals (breakfast) (G4), cookies and cakes (breakfast) (G5), snacks (G6), and convenience foods (G7). Based on papers with a methodology similar to that of Missbach et al [14] but reporting heterogeneous compositions in snacks and convenience foods [15][16][17][18], the last Nutrients 2022, 14, 2942 3 of 9 two groups were subdivided into sweet snacks (G6a), salty snacks (G6b), salty convenience (G7a) and sweet convenience (G7b) to ensure a better corroboration with existing evidence.…”

The Update of the Italian Food Composition Database of Gluten-Free Products and Its Application in Food-Based Dietary Guidelines Menus

“…Recently, some national databases have included a few analytical values for a limited list of GF products, mainly bread [ 30 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Up to now, other GF label-based FCDBs have been published [ 12 , 44 , 45 ], and several studies have collected and compared GF and GC food composition data declared on nutrition labels in several countries [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. However, only Missbach and colleagues [ 44 ] and Jamieson and colleagues [ 45 ] presented in their database a comprehensive list of nutrient values imputed from the ingredient list reported on the label using an approach comparable to ours.…”